NASDSE Explains Response to Intervention: Part II - Professional Development

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

Printable Version

According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), the successful implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) depends on the ability of general and special educators to use RtI reliably and validly. The reliability and validity with which RtI is implemented will be determined, to a great extent, by the quality of both the pre-service and in-service professional development models used to translate research to practice. This FOCUS on Results document is reprinted with permission from Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation (National Association of State Directors of Special Education 2005).

The following provides information about professional development that NASDSE considers necessary for professionals to be successful at implementing RtI. In its book, NASDSE provides guidance to state and local education agencies to foster effective leadership in RtI design and implementation across general, remedial, and special education.

Effective Professional Development Delivery Models

Little empirical research exists to support specific professional development programs and practices at either the pre-service or the in-service levels for professionals in education (National Reading Panel, 2000). However, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) defines what is required for high-quality staff development—including integrating professional development within broader school improvement plans—focusing on demonstrating a "positive and lasting impact" on classroom and student outcomes while relying on instructional strategies from scientifically-based research, and regularly evaluating professional development for impact on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes.

The National Staff Development Council (2001) has adopted standards for high-quality, comprehensive, outcome-based staff development. The Michigan State Board of Education endorses these standards. These standards provide a strong framework for designing, delivering, and supporting staff development for RtI. The Council's standards focus on integrating staff development within school improvement efforts (including reviewing student data to determine priority needs), providing leadership and support for change (including resources and on-site support), evaluating effectiveness and relying on research-based strategies (for content and also delivery of staff development).

Showers (1984) and Showers, Joyce, & Bennet (1987) synthesized the research on professional development and concluded that if educators are to master and practice new strategies, then combinations of four teaching components and two support components are necessary in the delivery of professional development programs (see also Clark, 1988). The four teaching components are:

• Theory (answers "why?" and focuses on educator knowledge).
• Demonstration (opportunity to see a new practice applied).
• Practice (25 trials using the skill are the minimum the authors suggest to ensure the skill is not lost).
• Feedback (provided promptly by peers or "experts" who are trusted).

Typically, theory and demonstration are the primary components of professional development. However, the research suggests that these components are necessary but insufficient to support skill use. Practice and feedback are essential components if skill implementation is expected.

Strategies to support the maintenance of new skills are often overlooked in professional development programs. Mentoring and coaching are increasingly being used as social support strategies to facilitate transfer of training and to continue strengthening the skills learned. Social support strategies for particular skill transfer can be provided either by peers who possess the skill or experts trusted by the staff. Administrative support and leadership are essential. It is widely recognized that support by building principals significantly improves the likelihood that any new instruction practice or policy will be implemented. This is particularly true when staff members believe that improvement in student achievement is associated with the new practice. This top-down support must be considered at the national, state, district, and individual school levels.

Practice Implications for Staff Training for RtI Implementation

• To expect long-term implementation, strong support (e.g., time, fiscal resources, training) at the national, state, and district leadership level is necessary, as is a leadership team that values RtI.
  • The relationship between RtI use and student achievement must be articulated clearly. When educators perceive that a new skill is related to student achievement, they are more likely to embrace that skill.
• The training must ensure that practice and feedback are available in sufficient quantity to ensure skill implementation.
• Support for sustaining implementation through on-site coaching and other methods is essential.
• Use of technology is critical to the success of effective and efficient training. The availability of user-friendly technology to support the skills required for RtI (e.g., graphing, trend/growth lines, student/class gap analyses) will be essential if widespread use is to be achieved. For example, interactive CD-ROM technology with video streaming can be used to support the practice component of training to ensure that educators can have 25 or more opportunities to practice the skill.

Levels of Professional Development Within Each State

Pre-Service Professional Development

A number of factors must be present to ensure that pre-service preparation programs for teachers, administrators, and student support staff provide integrated training in RtI. These factors include:

• Commitment to the use of empirically validated practices.
• Understanding and use of the problem-solving model.
• Incentives for pre-service faculty.
• Support at the national and state levels through accreditation and certification practices.

Barriers to the implementation of RtI, however, do exist at the pre-service level. These include:

• Faculty or others who disagree with this approach are invested because of their own involvement in the development of instructional and assessment practices that are not empirically validated or are theoretically antithetical to RtI (e.g., a clinical deficit-based model).
• Lack of incentives (e.g., state or federal personnel preparation grants) to translate research to practice.
• Certification requirements that do not include RtI skills or demonstration of the impact of the professional practices and behaviors on student performance.

In-Service Professional Development

In-service professional development should occur within and across administrative structures. These structures would include intermediate units, joint agreements, regional programs, school buildings, and program staff within the local educational agencies (LEAs). In-service professional development for RtI must occur at four levels within the state and local administrative structure: (1) leadership (policymakers, superintendents); (2) administrative (district and building level); (3) direct service (teachers and other instructional staff); and (4) related services (e.g., school psychologists, social workers, counselors, behavior specialists).

The content of professional development in RtI and the problem-solving method at the different levels within the state education agency (SEA) and administrative structure in the LEAs will vary with the role expectations for each level. However, there is certain content that personnel at all levels should receive.

Content—All Levels

There should be an understanding of the:

• National, state, and district policies regarding RtI, including the problem-solving method and use of empirically validated practices. (The link among No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 2004, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and RtI must be clear.)
• Beliefs, knowledge, and skills that support the successful implementation of RtI.
• Steps in the problem-solving process, the multi-level model of RtI, and how eligibility is determined using RtI.
• Fundamental utility of Curriculum- Based Measures (CBM) in RtI.

Content—Leadership Level

There should be an understanding of the:

• Professional development delivery model that best supports implementation.
• Staff and budget requirements to integrate general and special education services for the implementation of RtI.
• Relationship between implementation and expectations for improved student performance.
• Barriers that will occur and that must be addressed during implementation.
• Use of, and support for, technology necessary to ensure efficient and effective implementation of RtI.
• Essential stages of change and variables necessary for a smooth transition to RtI.

Content—Administrative Level

There should be an understanding of the:

• Need for universal, supplemental, and intensive instructional strategies and interventions.
• Components of a successful professional development plan, with particular emphasis on building capacity and sustaining changes in practice.
• Need for and skills in data-based decision making and the need to share outcome data frequently with the staff involved in the process.
• Need to publicly recognize the relationship between staff efforts and student outcomes.
• Coordination and alignment of district efforts to attain greater impact.
• Need to involve and inform parents about the essential element of RtI that impacts their child and her or his teacher.

Content—Direct Service Level

There should be an understanding of the:

• Relationship between RtI and student achievement.
• Need to increase the range of empirically validated instructional practices in the general education classroom.
• Uses of the problem-solving method.
• Technology and other supports available and necessary to implement RtI.
• Administrative and leadership support necessary to maximize the implementation of RtI.
• Need to provide practical models and examples with sufficient student outcome data.
• Need for demonstration and guided practice opportunities.

Content—Related Services Level

In addition to all of the content for direct service personnel, related services personnel should have an understanding of:

• The different models for looking at student performance differences and their impact on the development of instructional and assessment practices.
• Evaluation strategies to assess instructional quality in general and special education classrooms and programs.
• CBM and related continuous progress monitoring technologies to relate individual student performance to instructional quality data.
• The need for and models of social support and the role of support staff in the provision of that support.
• Specific training in coaching, mentoring, and data management strategies.

Required RtI Components for Skill Development

Successful professional development programs address three components of skill development: beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, and skill. Consider all three components when developing the content of a professional development plan, regardless of the level (e.g., leadership, administrative) of implementation.

Beliefs and Attitudes

Research on beliefs and attitudes has identified two factors that predict successful implementation of a new skill: (1) understanding a need for the practice (problem identification) and (2) the belief that one possesses the skills needed to implement the practice successfully (efficacy). In general, if the knowledge component of the professional development program is strong, then educators will understand both the theory behind, and the practical rationale for, the practice (relationship to student outcome). This addresses the problem identification issue. The efficacy issue can be addressed through either identifying existing skills that can be used for the new practice or by ensuring that skill development and social support components for the new skills exist in the professional development plan. However, when advocating for the use of RtI, an additional belief issue presents a potential barrier to successful professional development outcomes and must be addressed. Historically a "deficit" model has been used to identify students as eligible for special education categories and thus presumed in need of services. Any professional development program that focuses on the use of RtI must address this difference in approaches and ensure that participants have a clear understanding of the distinctions between the models, the student outcomes for each model, and the policy and funding issues related to each model.

Sufficient evidence exists that educators do change their attitudes and beliefs through professional development. However, this occurs only when the content of the professional development provides a practical rationale for the practice. Educators will likely embrace the assumptions that provide the basis for RtI if the shift makes sense in the historical context, if the rationale for RtI can be placed in the context of student outcomes, and if educators believe they have the skills and support necessary to implement the practice. Unless these beliefs and attitudes are addressed as part of the professional development plan, implementation of the practice will not occur.

Knowledge

Knowledge and skills influence educator efficacy. Levels of efficacy serve as good predictors of levels of practice implementation. Therefore, professional development programs must ensure that educators have a comprehensive RtI knowledge base and possess the skills that translate knowledge to actual practice. In the professional development plan, this knowledge base should include an understanding of the:

• Difference between the deficit and risk models of student performance and the assessment methods germane to each model (assessment for identification and instructionally relevant assessment).
• Difference between the intensity of a problem (gap between actual and desired performance) and the severity of a problem (determined by Response to Intervention).
• Relationship between the problem-solving model and RtI.
• Range of interventions at Tiers 1, 2 and 3. (See graphic above.)
• Central role that assessment of instructional quality plays in RtI.
• Need for a wide range of empirically validated instructional practices in both general and special education programs.
• Impact of using RtI on placement outcomes, funding patterns, and job security.
• Essential role that progress monitoring measures play in RtI.
• Importance of determining appropriate interventions based on student data.

Skills

Skills represent the practice component of knowledge and are derived from (perhaps limited to or by) the breadth of the knowledge base. Skills that are not taught in the context of the knowledge base will not be sustained. Articulating the link between the knowledge base and the skill is an essential part of the professional development process. Skills necessary to implement RtI include:

• Assessing instructional quality with relevant assessment practices.
• Judging instruction quality (class performance) and individual student levels of risk (response) through interpretation of assessment data.
• Making accurate decisions regarding improving instruction quality, selecting high-quality supplemental interventions, and developing instructional accommodations.
• Making reliable student eligibility decisions.
• Collaborating and communicating.
• Using technology to manage, display, and disseminate assessment data.

References

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (December 2005). Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. Available at www.nasdse.org.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Revised). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Showers, B. (1984). Peer Coaching: A strategy for facilitating transfer of training. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.

TOP of Page